[Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [

[tdastheday]

When I first started developing webs and applications I always strived to design for all browsers. NS used to follow W3C guidelines and specifications. However over the years with NS4,6,7 they seem to have forgotten what a browser does. A browser interprets code. When using standard code ALL browsers need to learn one thing FUNCTION OVER FORM !!! Yes NS looks nice but it simply doesn’t work.

After designing for many large companies, when asked about browser compatibility I simply pull out the latest set of log files from several web sites I work with. If you look at the numbers there is simply no reason to make your page less attractive to comply with NS and other inferior browsers. I don’t care if you’re a UNIX, Linux, or Win user IE is hands down the best. If you need to hit all audiences (ex. eCommerce) and you can afford the space have a version for IE and a version for NS.

PS. I just downloaded NS7 – and yep its crap too L

~To Day Is The Day~
-----------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by JabezStone
As a developer, I regularly have to answer client questions regarding Browser Compatability. My clients want to make sure, justifiably, that their content will be viewable by all web-users who will visit their site.

Perhaps some of you remember a company called Netscape who was once a major contender in the so-called "Browser Wars". This company, who was also a highlight in Microsoft's anti-trust case, at one time put up a fight to gain consumer loyalty. However, they just couldn't get one thing clear... The consumer wants it all. Netscape couldn't keep up with the features of Microsoft Internet Explorer, and refused to bend to the will of their most coveted possession... the user.

In a recent report by StatMarket, Netscape has fallen to a mere 3.4 percent penetration among web-surfers, as opposed to 13 percent only a year ago! Even the NEW NETSCAPE, packed with the Gecko engine, hasn't been able to sway the tide in the least bit.
Soon, it appears that Netscape will have to go head-to-head with the Opera browser just to get the last 1 or 2 percent of Web-surfer penetration.

It's a sad demise, really. A solid company with a solid product. Because of some bad choices in the Netscape ranks the "Browser wars" have turned into a bloody, browser massacre.

Here are the current rankings...

Global Browser Usage Share as of 8/26/02:
Microsoft 95.97%
Netscape 3.39%
Other .64%

So, the question comes to mind...
Do we leave Netscape as a contender and focus on primarily IE users, or continue with the painstaking task of Browser Compatability?

Any thoughts are coveted...

Written by Jay Jones

[Microchip]

Originally posted by keith30
I think Netscape was a good product before AOL bought.
After they bought it it went down hill. I hate to say it but I don't think there will be much of a future for Netscape. It used to be my favorite browser...

Hmm, is that just for AOL-bashing's sake, just like the M$-bashers of the open source world? Believe me, I'm no AOL fan (by a long shot!), but they have actually done some good things (believe it or not!)

Take ICQ for example - Mirabilis were in trouble financially. They just couldn't cope with the massive serverload and popularity. AOL stepped in. Admittedly, they changed it over to the OSCAR AIM protocol, and they stuck adverts all over it, but at least they kept it alive.

Same goes for Mozilla. If it weren't for AOL, the Netscape project would probably have gone tits-up. Let's face it, M$ were doing their best to crush them. And they've been providing financial support to Netscape, and it's netscape programmers who do a lot towards the Mozilla codebase. Don't get me wrong, there's also a hell of a lot of open source people who also have worked on it, but there are Netscape/AOL full-time employees who work on Moz. Otherwise, it would probably have taken longer to get to 1.0, and indeed 1.1 as it is now. Mozilla development is moving at a fantastic pace, and I believe it's partly due to AOL's support.

I believe Mozilla and Mozilla-based browsers will be the browser-of-choice in the future, purely because of speed, stability and standards compliance. That, and you can embed it into nearly anything. Take KDE and Nautilus for example. And, of course, the new AOL browser.

I've been using Moz since RC3. Now it's got to 1.1, they've pretty much got the 1.0 bugs worked out, and it has a "quirks" rendering mode to get around awkward pages. 99.999% of things work, so I'm happy.

Just my 2p, of course.
Rick.

[Microchip]

One other thing - I'd love to see IE pull of the total cross-compatibility that Mozilla has created with the XUL and other modular systems. You can write so much on top of the Moz code (related and unrelated to browsing / mail / IRC etc), e.g. LiveJournal clients, Jabber IM clients, MUD clients, games, spam filtration, and various other bits & pieces. That, and it's not overly hard to do. I'd love to see IE pull that one off.

Another point to note - Mozilla is wonderful for web developers when it comes to diagnosing problems, and/or examining pages. The JavaScript console and DOM inspectors have helped me narrow down quite a few problems. The popup blocking, banner blocking, individual server image blocks, password management is second to none, and it's form filler is highly adaptable. I know that IE does this with Autocomplete, but more often than not it's more of a curse than a blessing.

One other thing I've found useful is the Mouse Gestures add-in - allowing you to control browser behaviour with mouse movements. I believe Opera has also been implementing this, but IMHO Mozilla 1.1 blows the current Opera version to smithereens. (Admittedly I haven't tried the Opera 7 beta, but I'm not here to start a Moz <-> Opera flamewar!)

Check out http://www.mozdev.org/ for the addins available for Mozilla - you can make it do a hell of a lot more than it's default functionality.

That, and Mozilla's skin capabilities are just too cool.

[kendawg]

It does ship with IE now, but it wont in the next version.

Originally posted by tonyknibb

Originally posted by kendawg
if(AOL8.isReleased){
netscape.stats++;
ie.stats--;
}

/**
@Reasons
+ Most users are PC.
+ A majority of users are on AOL.
+ Almost every AOL user doesnt know that they can use IE
+ AOL pushes its new versions out in a whirlwind

@Causes
+ Netscape doesn't die
*/

AOL OWNS Nutscrape, but they SHIP a version of IE. It doesn't fill you with confidence - surely?

[monsterfx]

From my freelance web site, which I've tried to make readable by every browser:

(number of page requests)
MSIE
4 - 2
5 - 812
6 - 207

Netscape
4 - 61
6 - 31

Mozilla
1 - 37

Opera
6 - 21

Note that it is a young site and most of the NS, Moz, and Opera hits (and a similar chunk the of IE 5 hits) are from my testing.

I do strive to write to standards and then go back and fix the code for NS4.x. While I would love to write it off (would definitely make my life easier), there are still millions of people using it as their primary browser and a site should at least be accessible to them.

-monster.

[skyeflye]

Most of the computers that the U.S. government owns run Netscape 4.7x. I create a lot of government sites here in Washington, DC so I HAVE to test in NN 4.7x just so my Government clients can review the sites I make for their customers. It stinks! From my own personal experience, IE makes for a nicer user experience than Netscape. All but the absolute plainest, barest text-only pages load faster in IE than in any version of Netscape I have used.

One thing everyone needs to remember is that despite our best efforts to be objective, our preferences in browsers, operating systems, or even automobiles are based 90% in familiarity, and 10% in logical comparison. We are all biased to favor what we know and use most often. Nobody wants to "relearn" something they already think they know We all look down on what we don't know, diminishing the advantages of it while playing down the disadvantages of what we do know.

With all of its shortcomings and proprietary M$ weirdnesses, IE is just a stronger, more robust, stable product than Netscape on both Windows and Macintosh machines. It didn't used to be that way, but it is now. Pages appear to load faster, mouseover code tends to run more efficiently, browser plug-ins work better, and it crashes a LOT less. That's the way it looks from where I'm sitting.

-skyeflye

[Microchip]

Originally posted by skyeflye
From my own personal experience, IE makes for a nicer user experience than Netscape. All but the absolute plainest, barest text-only pages load faster in IE than in any version of Netscape I have used.

Have you used Mozilla 1.0 or Netscape 7? Mozilla, imho, is a better browser as it isn't full of AOL crap, but if people want the Netscape version (i.e. build on mozilla code, but with lots of additives, flavourings & colourings) then they have the choice. Rendering speed wise though, Mozilla beats IE hands down. Try it, you might just like it.

Originally posted by skyeflye
With all of its shortcomings and proprietary M$ weirdnesses, IE is just a stronger, more robust, stable product than Netscape on both Windows and Macintosh machines. It didn't used to be that way, but it is now. Pages appear to load faster, mouseover code tends to run more efficiently, browser plug-ins work better, and it crashes a LOT less. That's the way it looks from where I'm sitting.

Stronger? Hmm, don't know how often you've had IE crash on you. I count into the thousands, quite literally. Mozilla 1.1 is one of the most stable programs I have ever used, in it's base form. Obviously, some of the add-ons cause problems, but that's probably something to do with the fact they're alpha's & betas, and labelled as such. Even then, they tend to be relatively stable.

With the turboload functions, Mozilla now starts as fast as IE, has built in profiling systems overall (not just in mail like IE/OE), and every bit of code I've seen runs more efficiently. As for browser plug-ins working better - could that be because the manufacturers haven't been putting the effort into the netscape-type plugins, favouring IE and ActiveX? Well, I should think that one will be changing soon. And I believe a project to integrate ActiveX support in Mozilla is being developed too.

Also, I might point out, as many others have done repeatedly, that despite IE being so "secure", there seems to be at least 6 serious root-type vulnerabilities discovered every month. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. At least through Moz you're incredibly unlikely to get some virus auto-infecting you, some webpage editing your registry, and M$ rooting your box.

In case anyone hadn't noticed, if you've installed either the most recent two Windows Media Player updates, Windows 2000 SP-3, or the forthcoming Windows XP SP1, it gives MS and any other "authorised" parties to automatically download and install software on your machine for the purposes of "security" and enforcing secure DRM i.e. removing your freedom to play the media and/or sites you want. Also, the EULA's that MS have been putting out have been getting tighter and tigher, indeed almost giving total control to MS to basically "enforce their rights" (Windows XP SP-1 being a prime example.) No doubt the next version of IE will have the same. Would you allow MS access to your confidential stuff? Never mind the hackers...

Also, another thought to consider. There was a security problem announced with Mozilla. It was fixed within 24 hours, on their latest build. How long does it normally take Microsoft?

I'd rather trust my data to the hundreds of open source programmers out there, being able to see the source code with my own eyes if I want to and actually look through it, than a closed-source browser that's got more holes in it than swiss cheese. Mind you, the operating system's has much to be desired on that score.

Version 1.0 of Mozilla had some problems with XP, which have been solved with 1.1. It's fast, reliable, and secure. It has tabbed browsing, which saves a lot of messing. The ability to block popups, disable javascript in e-mail, and more importantly recieve all e-mail as plain text (regardless of the format it was sent in) are absoloute godsends. Yes, it takes a little getting used to, but it's well worth it. It's rather like comparing the Lada you've been driving around in for the last 5 years to a new Ferrari you've just been given. Sure, it takes a little getting used to, but it's well worth it.

That, and if anyone's really scared of the switch, you can even make it look and feel like IE with a theme change and a couple of switches. It's built-in choice of search engines (especially Google) is very useful.

As licensing becomes more and more of an issue, we're seeing governments and corporations turn to open source. Including China, which has decided to grow it's own version of Linux.

Mozilla evolved into version 1.0 over four years. It took that long because everything had to be standards compliant, and as perfect as it could at the time. Within 3 months, 1.1 was out. It works beautifully, and I couldn't ask for much more out of a browser.

Except one thing.

The removal of the <blink> tag. Why, oh why, was that thing invented? Curse of Netscape 2, I guess.

There you have it, take it or leave it. I actually have faith in the Mozilla project, and the code derived from it (as a rule)... which is more than I can say for Windows and Internet Explorer.

Rick.

[tonyknibb]

Originally posted by le_saut
I think you'll see Mozilla taking off soon... as a browser it craps all over IE.

If that's true, and Mozilla displays stuff 'properly' based on W3C standards - why can it still not display layers properly?

Go here:

http://www.gutweek.org.uk/popup_index.html

click on ANY of the 'What the experts say...' links...

Oh, lookie here! I can see the copy from BELOW the layer through the layer - but only at the lower half of the layer. Now that ain't right. It displays just fine in Nutscrape 4.7, Nutscrape 6, IE 4/5/6 (on MAC and PC). BUT NOT IN MOZILLA 1.1?

WHY?

I'll admit it, it definately displays pages far far quicker than IE 6, but what's the point if they aren't displayed correctly?

[le_saut]

WHY?
Here's what the WDG has to say about Span :

The SPAN element is a generic inline container. SPAN carries no structural meaning itself, but it can be used to provide extra structure through its LANG, DIR, CLASS
, and ID attributes. Style sheets are often used to suggest a presentation for a given class or ID.

SPAN should only be used where no other HTML inline element provides a suitable meaning. If a presentation such as bold or italic text would be suitable on visual browsers, authors may prefer to use an appropriate font style element. For example:

1. <P><SPAN LANG=fr>La Révolution Tranquille</SPAN> shook Quebec in the early 1960's.
2. <P><I LANG=fr>La Révolution Tranquille</I> shook Quebec in the early 1960's.

These examples are identical in meaning, but the second example uses the I element to suggest italic text.

DIV is a block-level equivalent of SPAN for containing block-level elements such as P and TABLE.

Tried using Div instead..? you can turn the visibility of a div off and on with Javascript etc. In fact it's a great idea when building @media print stylesheets.

I like the idea of the "pop-ups" you use but what about some chromeless pops to do the same job?

cheers
James

[le_saut]

I really enjoyed reading this article and the accompanying links. It may clear some things up here.

A List Apart : To Hell with Bad Browsers

cheers
James

[tonyknibb]

Tried using Div instead..?

you mean like:

<div id="page1" style="position:absolute; left:272px;
 top:447px; width:526px; height:200px; z-index:1;
 background-color: #FFFFFF; layer-background-color: #FFFFFF;
 border: 1px none #000000; visibility: hidden">

um...yes...that's what I've used...I just pulled this code straight from the page...

The <span>s are just for formating the copy...

[Musicman]

Hi,

we have seen the idiocy of developing and releasing software as dictated by marketing rather than user requirements.

As an interesting example, macromedia did reinvent the wheel of compressed data transfer for FMX. There is already an acknowledged way to do it - content-transfer-encoding: almost every browser but for IE supports it and offers its willingness to receive compressed data. Most servers know how to feed compressed data to a browser willing to accept them, and the technology helps with flash and non-flash content. Now, why does IE not support that? the company wants to sell more servers to deliver more data, and at some time they were planning to become an access provider as well ... and certainly compressing data may reduce income both if surfing is paid by megabyte or by minute.
On the other hand, AOL releasÃ*ng a snapshot of development (N6.0 was exactly that) certainly was a marketing move as well, and we all know it was a bad one.

Musicman

[l0ungeb0y]

Originally posted by Musicman
There is already an acknowledged way to do it - content-transfer-encoding: almost every browser but for IE supports it and offers its willingness to receive compressed data. Most servers know how to feed compressed data to a browser willing to accept them, and the technology helps with flash and non-flash content. Now, why does IE not support that?

Hi Musicman,
I must be real confused here when I use gzip encoding to transfer gzip compressed data to IE, which I use on all my sites and works like a charm.

Gzip is an open compression standard and is handled very nicely by PHP with it's output buffering functions.
<? ob_start("ob_gzhandler"); ?>

If you look at what IE states for it's content handlers:
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
...this clearly states that IE accepts content encoding of type gzip and will transparently deflate (decompress) it upon recieving it from the server.

So could you please be more informative of your point in the previous post? It seems quite disinformative and I would rather people did not recieve disinformation regarding web developement aspects.

[Musicman]

Hi,

I also thought that the feature was part of IE, but I dont see the accept-encoding header - is it possible that the default setting of IE just does not announce the capability for some weird reason? (The two systems where I was looking at headers: W2000 with IE6, and W98 (definitely default install) upgraded to IE6 as well.
On the other hand, if all systems handle gzip, why would there be a reason to implement compression inside the swf file as well (sure, you can no longer use notepad to search for url's or passwords in a movie)

Musicman

[l0ungeb0y]

Originally posted by Musicman
is it possible that the default setting of IE just does not announce the capability for some weird reason? (The two systems where I was looking at headers: W2000 with IE6, and W98 (definitely default install) upgraded to IE6 as well.

That is weird, I have been using IE 6 since it's beta and have upgraded to the full release, without ever once having to set anything special for gzip content encoding.
So, I have no explanation for that.
Possibly you are running a more recent version of IE that has had that feature disabled for a security reason?
But, I have no real answer there.

To grab the content encoding header, I just called up a phpinfo() from my browser (IE 6) and it came up in the Apache headers portion.

On the other hand, if all systems handle gzip, why would there be a reason to implement compression inside the swf file as well (sure, you can no longer use notepad to search for url's or passwords in a movie)

This may be a second level of compression proprietary to Macromedia for the pupose of a file encryption/compression utility native to Flash MX to address security considerations. By using a non-standard compression utility they would be resposible for handling that content type themselves as the browser would not know that it was compressed/encrypted since it is binary data being sent with a special mime type. So in that case, it would make perfect sense.

[Musicman]

Hi,

the compression is zlib (deflate), and the mime type still is aplication/x-shockwave-flash. The actual file header (which is seen by the player and possibly used when IE tries to determine the file type) contains characters SWF for uncompressed or characters SWC for compressed format

Musicman

[l0ungeb0y]

Originally posted by Musicman
Hi,

the compression is zlib (deflate), and the mime type still is aplication/x-shockwave-flash. The actual file header (which is seen by the player and possibly used when IE tries to determine the file type) contains characters SWF for uncompressed or characters SWC for compressed format

Musicman

Well, that explains a lot.
zlib is a different compression library than gzip.
Sure, they both have z's, but that's where the similarity ends as they both use different compression algorithms and have different file headers.

Also, the fact that the actual binary file header of the .swf itself tells me that the flash player is handling the decompression and __not__ IE.

IE as any proper browser should wouyld only concern itself with the HTTP_HEADERS (ie: Location:, Content-Type, Set-Cookie et al) AND NOT the actual file headers (except for HTML doc-header declarations such as DOC-TYPE, title and meta etc). This is the way it works for all formats, whether it be .jpeg, .gif, .mov, .mp3, .ram and the all mighty .swf And hence the need for plug-ins that do concern themselves with their respective file headers. The browser doesn't actually do anything with the file except pass it to the appropriate plug-ins that it would need for interpretation prior to output by the plug-in.

So in this case, you could deliver with 2 compressions, first the gzip browser level compression and then the internal Flash level zlib compression, denoted by the swc which the Flash 6 player will pick up and process internally before output.

[johntabita]

Do we leave Netscape as a contender and focus on primarily IE users, or continue with the painstaking task of Browser Compatability?

I've agonized over this question just a bit in the last year or so. My solution has been to make sure that all of the content is accessible in Netscape 4, but I'm no longer concerned about the graphics. If tables break apart causing gaps in the images, I don't care so long as the content of the site is readable.

I create a primary stylesheet that works in IE and Netscape 6-7 by using the import method:

<style type="text/css">
<!--
/* This is the IE & NN6 stylesheet */ 
@import url(styles.css);
-->
</style>

Netscape 4 will ignore this code because it doesn't support it, so I duplicate my 'styles.css,' rename it 'styles_nn4.css' and remove all styles that NN doesn't like (primarily the line-height declaration).

I place the following code before the import method:

<link href="styles_nn4.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">

Netscape 4 recognizes this and applies the styles. IE & Netscape 6-7 give preference to the import method because it is placed last.

It's a bit of a pain, but takes less than 5 minutes. (The alternative is to have images that overlap the text in NN4, rendering the site unusable.) I'm figuring that in the next 6-12 months I'll be able to abandon this techique entirely.

[pissant]

Originally posted by johntabita



It's a bit of a pain, but takes less than 5 minutes. (The alternative is to have images that overlap the text in NN4, rendering the site unusable.) I'm figuring that in the next 6-12 months I'll be able to abandon this techique entirely.

I'm a proponent for standards
YAY standards!
I think you fix is a good idea, still serving content but not design!
the link below is a campaign to get people to upgrade their browsers and to get developers to code to the standards ( which would be interesting for the people coding for IE only )
http://www.webstandards.org/act/campaign/buc/

[olafurj]

The right thing to do is follow open standards. Otherwise you will always be dependant of Microsoft, no matter what the cost is.

Most people only want information on the net not the newest html tricks.

It sad to have to have Internet Exporer to get a peace of text from the internet.

Gopher rules!